**An assessment of “fairness” ultimately depends on whether one strives for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome.** It is practically undeniable that a vast amount of inequality still exists in the world, ranging from racial and gender inequality to political and economic inequality. However, our approach to making society “better and more fair” is dependent on the _type_ of equality that one chooses to strive for. Let us now review the two main types: • _Equality of opportunity_: [This form of equality](https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/equality-outcome) has been championed by liberal thinkers such as [John Rawls](https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome) and politicians such as [Barack Obama](https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity). It defines a fair society as one that has removes underprivileged individuals’ obstacles to success, such as wealth, so that everyone has the chance to achieve their goals based on merit alone. This has partially been achieved through initiatives such as equality under the law and free access to education. However, it can also be argued that more work needs to be done to tackle issues such as subconscious bias and class prejudice if we are to truly live in a meritocratic society. • _Equality of outcome_: In contrast, supporters of this form of equality argue that the concept of equality of opportunity is flawed because [by definition](https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity) it accepts the possibility that people may fail in life due to their personal decisions. Moreover, they argue that we can never live in a true meritocracy for reasons such as the advantages that those born into wealth have over their poorer peers. Thus, supporters of equal outcomes believe that equality can only be achieved through measures such as diversity quotas and the redistribution of wealth. Despite this, there is some evidence to suggest that such initiatives may have negative consequences such as the inhibition of innovation and workers’ motivation to do better, which can lead to a reduction in GDP and everyone becoming poorer. Moreover, some have argued that it is actually [_unfair_](https://www.steveglaveski.com/blog/why-equality-of-outcome-is-a-bad-idea) to “take” these opportunities away from people who have worked harder for them.

**People won't give up their privilege in order for society to be more equal.** While we can hope for a better and more fair society and we can do all that we can to help make this a reality, I think that the people in the ‘good spot’ will never give up what they have. For example, to rectify a lot of social issues that for example racism has caused, white privilege would need to be dismantled. And I think that there are too many white people comfortable in their privilege to want to give it up. There is too much selfishness and self-prioritisation for society to ever be truly fair.